Archives for 2024

There was a robust discussion regarding Norwegian doctoral fellow RF Hoffman’s thread on the risk Putin and Russia poses to Europe and the world. And by robust I mean both interesting and good. Which I read when I got up this morning. I wanted to make a couple of points. The first is that Carlo is, indeed, correct that the international relations theory concept of rational versus irrational actors is hollow. Putin isn’t irrational. Rather, a la Weber, he operates within bounded rationality. Which means within his specific context, his decision making – from process to actual decision – is rational. As in it makes sense given what he believes about the world, the global system, Russian history, etc. The problem, of course, is that what Putin believes, and what those around him, working for him, most likely to replace him one day believe, is inaccurate, ahistorical, etc.

The second is that Putin and contemporary Russia are not the Soviet Union. The USSR, for all it being officially big C Communist, was inherently small c conservative. Putin and the Russia that has evolved, or perhaps devolved, under his long rule, is reactionary, revanchist, and irredentist. Russia’s neighbors who were subjected to Soviet rule look at what he’d done, what he’s doing, and what he threatens to do and draw very different conclusions than we do. Finland and Sweden didn’t decide to join NATO in the past 2 years for shits and giggles.

Third, we need to remember that NATO Article V does not compel a member state to come to the self defense of another that has been attacked. As former US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder explains:

Legally, the U.S. (or any other NATO member, for that matter) is merely obliged to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” In other words, each member is left to decide for itself whether and how to act in case of an armed attack on an ally. And even that provision, in Article 5, is only binding after all NATO members agree to invoke the commitment.

Putin knows this. And he thinks, based on observation over the past two years, that he’s taken the measure of the US, the EU, and NATO and found them lacking in resolve. Which leads to my fourth and final point: our EU partners, in or out of NATO, do not have the means to actually fight a war. Max Bergmann from CSIS explains:

Europe’s approach to supporting Ukraine’s war effort is no longer fit for purpose. There is a desperate need for Europe to ramp up its defense industrial production. But despite a clear consensus behind this urgent need, European production lines are not yet maxing out their capacity. The root of the issue is not so much a lack of political will but, as is frequently the case with European defense, a failure to cooperate and a lack of funding.

Time is of the utmost urgency. Russian defense production is accelerating, with Russia gearing up for a winter offensive and bombarding Ukrainian cities in the December at the highest rate since the conflict began. It is clear that Putin is not seeking an off-ramp or negotiated settlement to this war but to reverse Russia’s humiliation and subjugate Ukraine. However, Europe has not yet shifted to the new reality that Ukraine faces a long war. Should the U.S. Congress fail to pass more funding for Ukraine, the transfer of U.S. weapons, most worryingly munitions, will slow to a trickle. With U.S. support for Ukraine on thin ice in Congress, former president Donald Trump leading the polls, and Russia ramping up its war machine, Europe needs to act urgently to both support Ukraine and restock its warehouses to improve its own military readiness.

Over the past two years, Europeans have supported Ukraine by emptying their warehouses of aging equipment and munitions. The European Union’s European Peace Facility (EPF) has incentivized its member states to give military equipment to Ukraine by reimbursing them for some of the costs.  However, there is now little left to give, as most of the old equipment has been divested. As such, European military support to Kyiv is lagging. The problem is that there is a tension between rebuilding European militaries and supporting Ukraine. Thus, European countries are much more reluctant to give Ukraine newer, more expensive equipment, which is vital for national defense and meeting NATO targets.

Much more at the link.

Here is President Zelenskyy’s address from earlier today. Video below, English transcript after the jump.

show full post on front page

War for Ukraine Day 701: More on Yesterday’s Plane Crash, Some Clarifying Context, & the GOP Senate Caucus Telegraph that Its Going to Take a DivePost + Comments (18)